capability.list

Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?

Annotations already provide readOnlyHint=true, idempotentHint=true, destructiveHint=false. The description adds risk and maturity context and notes that session policy still applies, which supplements the annotations without contradicting them.

Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.

Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?

The description is short and front-loads the essential identity and safety classification. The final sentence is generic but harmless. It earns its place by being compact.

Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.

Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?

An output schema exists, and annotations cover the safety profile, so the description need not explain return values or safety. However, it lacks a clear statement of function and sibling differentiation. For a capability-listing tool this is barely adequate.

Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.

Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?

With 13 parameters and only 69% schema description coverage, the description contributes nothing to parameter understanding. Several parameters are explicitly 'not yet audited' in the schema, and the description does not clarify them or explain how limit, domain, or offset should be used.

Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.

Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?

The description states the command name and risk level but never explicitly says the tool lists capabilities. The purpose is inferable from the name but not stated in the description. This is roughly the minimum viable level.

Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.

Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?

There is no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives. The note about per-request argument checks and session policy is a generic constraint, not selection guidance. Siblings like blender_capability_describe and blender_session_capabilities remain undistinguished.

Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.